Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional

244 Revista Temas de Derecho Constitucional the standards of what an ordinary, reasonable person would do or be expected to do if they were faced with a similar situation in the UK. Their claim will be examined for internal inconsistencies and apparent gaps in information or contradictions. What was said by the claimant at an earlier stage will be compared and contrasted with what the claimant says at the interview. The underlying premise is that those who tell the truth do not contradict themselves. This does not take account of the fact that humanmemory is frail, that considerable timemay have passed between the acts of persecution and the interview, or that those escaping persecution may understandably try to bolster or embellish a claim when life and limb are at stake. The claim is also tested against a background of objective evidence. Objective evidence can be found in independent NGO’s reports, media outlets or other sources. The Secretary of State produces a series of publicly available booklets or Country Policy and Information Notes. These Notes collate information on a specific country, including its political arrangements and institutional set up, plus a variety of other aspects relative to language, cultural practices or religion, which can give context to an asylum claim. They also highlight any relevant human rights issues potentially which could potentially impact on the reasonable degree of likelihood of persecution. The Notes serve as guidance for officers to assess matters such as the actuality of risk, the availability of protection, the feasibility of internal relocation and ultimately, the credibility and reliability of a claimant’s case. The interview then becomes an exercise in cross examination. The consistency of the claimant’s account is tested for internal contradictions, as well as against the background of other, external sources of information. Interview techniques such as frequent interruptions or randomly ‘jumping’ from one area of questioning to another are deployed to disrupt the flow of the narrative and try to and catch out the bogus interviewee. The well-foundedness of the claimant’s fear of persecution is not presumed: It needs to be demonstrated. But by whom, and to what extent? d. The burden of proof and the standard of proof It is for the claimant to demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of persecution under a ‘Convention reason’. The claimant bears the ‘burden of proof’. They have to showthat they sufferedor are likely to suffer persecutionon thebasis of their nationality, race, religion, political opinion or belonging to a particular social group. In order to demonstrate that there is a reasonable degree of likelihood of persecution on a ‘Convention reason’, they are expected to provide documentary and other evidence in support of their claim. Claimants ought to submit all material to the Secretary of State, including their own statement regarding the reasons for making an asylum claim. All relevant documentation speaking to the claimant’s identity, nationality, previous residence and travel routes ought to be handed over. The claimant’s testimony is ‘the most important evidence’ however 32 . 32 Assessing Credibility and Refugee Status (2019). [Ebook]. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397778/ASSESSING_CREDIBILITY_ AND_REFUGEE_STATUS_V9_0.pdf at 4.3